It is even difficult to start a debate about the possibility of artificial intelligence, because we have to eliminate so many semantic debris before we can agree on what we are talking about.
For starters, does artificial intelligence imply an artificial consciousness of the self, an artificial consciousness? In my opinion, this should be the case. Otherwise, we are really talking about advanced machines.
But some would disagree and say that the question of conscience is not important; It is the construction of an expert system that simulates human intelligence for practical purposes.
This may well turn out to be an issue that deserves to be decided, since many experts predict that artificial intelligence (AI) will be realized in the current century and will pose a great threat to human supremacy on this planet.
Another point, perhaps less urgent, but equally interesting at the philosophical level, is this: can all intelligence be artificial? If a machine becomes conscious of itself, should not it be considered that this condition has been activated instead of "created" by the human constructors of the physical structure of the machine? After all, parents who father children are considered to be issuers rather than creators of life.
In my opinion, if a machine is built with a level of recursive complexity that leads to self-consciousness, it will be thanks to an attraction that complexity will be exercised at any level of reality that governs the arrival of consciousness. In the words of Philip K. Dick, the machine "caught" life.
Another point is that it is possible, in a more distant future, that the automation of the machine advances to such an extent that adjustments and automatic adaptations begin to present a close analogy with biological evolution. In this case, the notion of "artificiality" is relegated to a second plane, because machines in fact become an integral part of nature and react to natural conditions as other creatures do. This idea is brilliantly described in the Poul Anderson story, "Epilogue" (1962). Electronic models, which contain complete information on the design of machines, play the role of DNA. Hard radiation affects these recordings because they would affect an organic gene, and the resulting mutations play a role in natural selection. The superior machines have something analogous to sexual reproduction ("... their body diagram has been crossed by currents and magnetic fields ... the two heterodyned patterns and in the deepest part of it had had the first crystallization to place").
In the Ooranye project, a series of stories that take place on the giant planet Uranus, not well known to astronomers, but its most real and archetypal: the process of evolution of the machine has resulted in a category of beings, Ghepiones. , which are partly organic. Components of the city, means of transport or even the landscape.
After considering all this, what is left of the usefulness of the Turing test?
This is the test suggested by Alan Turing (1912-1954) in his 1950 article entitled "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". To perform the test, someone questions an invisible human and an invisible machine, and tries to distinguish them by the quality of their responses. If the machine responds so well that it can not be separated from the human respondent, it has passed the test and can be considered a successful imitator of the human mind.
Maybe Turing himself was happy to leave him there. If we only talk about evaluating the degree of imitation, the test is good. But, of course, it is impossible to leave it there, because the broader philosophical questions attract attention. It is unfortunate that some authors, such as Arthur C Clarke, seem to think that the Turing test is something more useful. It's as if they said that the issue of self-consciousness is not important.
On the other hand, I can underestimate Clarke; perhaps when he says that we are all machines (thus emphasizing that it is the motive that counts and not the material), he argues in favor of a transcendent consciousness that both organic and inorganic organisms possess as soon as possible. They reach a certain level of complexity. In other words, he says that complexity is consciousness, which is a wise or stupid thing, depending on whether, in the back of his mind, he allows a higher level of reality in which consciousness can register.
If you do not allow this higher level of reality, you can only allow many particles and force fields to interact at the same monistic level. In this case, whatever the complexity, nothing qualitative. Without transcendence, you can not even have sensitivity, let alone intelligence.
I do not base this claim on my religious nature, but on the absolutely fundamental distinction made / value in philosophy. This distinction has never been convincingly refuted and certainly must be one of the few solid conclusions that philosophers have reached over millennia of intellectual effort and controversy. You can not take a value out of a fact. That is, he can not draw a word from an article without presupposing a "better" and a "worse".
If you do not believe me, try it. Is life better than death? Yes? Why? Why does life add complexity and variety to the universe? But who says that complexity and variety are better than simplicity and monotony? It is not good to discuss alone. The value comes from its own dimension. It has its own origin, its own aspect or its own level of reality. If I could extract a value from a fact, it would immediately cease to be a value. ("This mother died to save her children!" "Ah, I was just obeying her imperative of evolution").
Maybe in the coming decades, a machine will "wake up" with a personality. Some people can use this to argue against spiritual beliefs, as if proving that we brought the spirit back to earth and showed that it was just a refined circuit board. On the contrary, I would say: the creation of an artificial intelligence will be the last nail in the coffin of materialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment